NOTE: This page is in desperate need of revision and expansion. In the meantime, I suggest you use Rationalwiki’s Manosphere Glossary.
For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.
First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:
MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.
Ok, so what do those terms mean?
MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether. I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.
Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:
Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).
Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.
Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.
The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.
NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.
PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”
Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.
@ Kittehserf
This ‘victim blaming’ fad is a red herring. Allow me to demonstrate.
If I walk out of my home and forget to lock the door only to return home to find my belongings gone- who is to blame?
The person who took my belongings is to blame!
But.. was it wise to leave my door open? No!
It is just the same with any other crime. Some behaviors are simply not wise. Why is this so hard to understand?
Oh more comparisons between bodies and property, aren’t you original.
-Dressing “slutty” does not cause rape, look at the rates of rape in India, where the women dress in sarees and can’t wear shorts above their knees, vs places that are OK with nudity.
-Rape is not comparable to getting something stolen. Robbery is not a violent crime.
-Women cannot lock their bodies up.
-Women could however lock themselves in their rooms and never speak to anyone, however they’d probably starve and go insane.
-We have a rape culture, getting your things stolen is not something that people are reluctant to report, or often blamed on the victim. When was the last time you heard of someone getting robbed and their communities telling them that they were stupid for it? Even people who have their houses burned down because they left their oven on aren’t blamed.
-Rapists don’t rape just because they want sex, otherwise they’d just masturbate or hire a prostitute(not to rape the prostitute). Also the rates of rape have gone far down today. However male sex drive has not.
-However robbers rob to get free things, and sometimes the robber actually does need those things to survive(not that it would make it OK, it’s just understandable and very sad sometimes).
It’s more comparable to getting your child kidnapped while going to the park on a sunny day, and then telling the parent that they were foolish to bring their child outside where he/she could be kidnapped, since “IT’S JUST ADVICE I’M NOT SAYING KIDNAPPING IS OK”.
Women (and other vagina-havers) just need to remember to lock their vaginas up at all times when they’re not actually in use. Common sense!
And if upon reporting this crime to the police, they said “Well, you DID leave your door open, are you sure you didn’t want the burglar to take your things? Maybe this is a case of you giving someone a gift and then just regretting it the next day. You know, you shouldn’t be so quick to ruin someone’s life just because you keep changing your mind. The burglar is probably a really nice guy! And you do have a history of giving people gifts! Why should we believe this wasn’t just a gift-giving? Lying philanthropist!” we would probably be talking about the severe burglary-related victim-blaming problem this country has.
(Leaving aside the already-mentioned point that women’s bodies are not property and being raped is not like having your things stolen, you reprehensible fucking tool.)
It’s not. Some behaviors are simply not wise.
So what?
Are you insinuating a minimum standard of wisdom to be entertained before something can be criminally prosecuted? Are you implying a need for a certified zen mentor to give you proper credentials before a judge can hear your claims? Are you inferring that wisdom must be maintained at a certain level for things to be one thing and another?
No, you are not.
You are saying that because something wasn’t wise (leaving the door open), the crime is somehow excused. You are merely moving your mockery that one step, trying to find another point in the logic chain of your victim blaming you can shoehorn the guilt, the transgressions and the remark in.
“Oh, so you left your DOOR OPEN, huh? Not wise!”
“Oh, so you left your WINDOW OPEN, huh? Not wise!”
“Oh, so you didn’t LOCK the DOOR, huh? Not wise!”
“Oh, so you didn’t LATCH the WINDOW, huh? Not wise!”
“Oh, so you didn’t BUY AN ALARM, huh? Not wise!”
“Oh, so you FORGOT TO PUT BATTERIES in the alarm, huh? Not wise!”
“Oh, so you only have ONE LOCK, huh? Not wise!”
“Oh, so you DON’T OWN A GUN, huh? Not wise!”
“Oh, so you LIVE IN THAT PART OF TOWN, huh? Not wise!”
“Oh, so you live ON THAT STREET, huh? Not wise!”
“Oh, so you don’t have FAMILY MEMBERS STAYING IN AT ALL HOURS, huh? Not wise!”
“Oh, so you don’t have satellite surveillance MONITORING YOUR HOUSE 24 / 7, huh? Not wise!”
“Oh, so you had your HOUSE BROKEN INTO PREVIOUSLY, huh? Not wise!”
“Oh, so you one had A FRIEND WHO STOLE SOMETHING FROM YOUR HOUSE, huh? Not wise!”
Common to this entire list is that, once your items are stolen, the perhaps to blame is somehow still yourself, not the person who did the stealing.
What a strange world to live in, to regard vigilance as an action but criminal acts as a natural force.
And yes, to tempt lions with raw meat is not wise, but people are not lions nor meat, then where does wisdom enter?
“Oh, so you were wearing that outfit, huh? Not wise”
“Oh, so you were wearing those shoes, huh? Not wise”
“Oh, so you talked to those people, huh? Not wise”
“Oh, so you had a drink, huh? Not wise!”
Your coy cry of “not wise” means nothing. It’s a spineless attempt at insinuating stupidity and idiocy on the behalf of those you decry, but not stepping out and actively saying so. What rot.
Did someone say detachable vagina?
http://youtu.be/R8FfFwtL91Q
James: What’s with the huge stereotypes and “pigeon holing” of ideologies?
Show us the MRA who aren’t shitheads? Where are the moderates?
If you can find them, we can take them out of the pigeonholes.
But when AVfM is as good as it gets (Which is what we keep getting when we pose this question) Then your “movement” is a bunch of assholes and shitheads and women haters.
Dark Chapeau: Let us assume that what manboobers say about themselves is true- that they do not like men very much and find them rather unnecessary.
Which of us has said that?
Surely these people should welcome MGTOW?
We have no problem with it. What we say is shitty is the Men Who Won’t Actually GO THEIR OWN WAY, but instead complain about the way women go about acting as if they weren’t important.
I read here most of the female posters regard themselves as sexpots who can hardly walk down the street without being propositioned.
You did? Where? What I recall is women saying they are average (or a bit frumpy/fat/not so great looking) and getting harassed.
You seem to speak a different dialect of English from the rest of us.
What is feminism if it is not a movement of women who need a man like a fish needs a bicycle
More problems with English. Needs are not the same as wants. I need to bathe, I want hot water.
I need to eat, I want a tasty meal.
See the difference? A woman doesn’t need a man to survive, and society ought not force her to such a circumstance.
This bullshit again.
What gets a woman raped is being a woman. Nothing more, nothing less.
90 year old women in hospitals have been raped. What did they do which was equivalent to, “leaving the door unlocked”?
Been a woman.
Erm, lots of feminists ARE men.
Also, wtf? This thread is surely proof of the coming zombie apocalypse.
@ pecunium
You see this is the point. Manboobers claim to get this hollywood style attention and yet I do not quite believe it. Why? Firstly because they generally do not spend a great deal of time talking about their great beauty. The stereotypical view of feminists is that they are somewhat below average in this department. Not always true, I know.
The second reason I do not believe it is that I have a Lithuanian female friend who could (and really should) be a model. She says that she NEVER feels objectified. I had to mansplain the concept to her as it does not seem to be part of the Lithuanian psyche.
She interprets interest from men as simple friendliness. As a result she developed a warm and open personality herself and seems happier than the feminists I know.
Nobody can read minds. A man smiles. Is he ‘objectifying’ you or is he just in a good mood?
The choice is yours really as it probably a bit of both. Believe it or not a man CAN develop friendly feelings towards a woman that has nothing to do with him being a ‘typically oversexed man’.
There is a big difference between having a guy smile at you and have him yell something at you out of a car as he drives past.
You obviously have no idea what street harassment is like, or how stressful it can be.
The Bad Faith: “Let me explain to you why your own experiences are not valid.”
“My super hot imaginary friend says you’re all wrong”
Is it possible that all of these conspiracies that men seem to be bringing against you exist only in your own mind?
Oh how cute! It’s trying to gaslight.
What the hell are you talking about, Asshat? Nobody has mentioned any “conspiracies by men against women”. That’s not what patriarchy means. Patriarchy describes a set of attitudes and beliefs that exist to maintain the status quo of mens’ superiority to women. You know, the stuff about a man’s inalienable right to catcall strange women on the street and her lack of right to get angry about it because “it’s a compliment”; a man’s right to tell a strange woman that they shouldn’t look sad or angry and ought to smile because they look pretty when they smile and a woman’s highest goal in life should be looking pretty for men; more blatant stuff, such as a male boss’s right to deny a woman the same salary as a man in an identical position etc.
Men who promote patriarchal attitudes are not motivated by stereotypical cartoon villainy, as a conspiracy would suggest, but by the fear of losing their privileged status. They are using their established status to oppose the changes in society that would lead to equality, the bane of privilege. Emotionally immature people (of either sex) tend to react with fear and anger when others exercise their agency, since it may lead to a conflict between what they want and what others want. There would have to be discussion, and probably a compromise, between my rights and their rights! The horror!
In the wake of this Facebook mess, don’t you find it odd that violent images depicting women being beaten, humiliated and raped for the crime of being women run rampant enough to warrant special attention, while similar images of men are non-existent*? Instead of blaming some hackneyed concept of misandry, how about realizing that misogynists are using the lowest common denominator, the threat of violence, to “keep women in line”?
It’s all the same shit, really. There are many reactions to the loss of privilege. Some men get angry and start making threats. Some men get angry and start manipulating. Some men get a little confused, but after the basic feminist facts are explained to them, they soon start seing things from another perspective than the one they’re used to. Some (most?) men see no problem with this, since they’ve always regarded women as fellow human beings deserving of equal rights.
*Do realize that when images of men being victims of violent crimes are depicted, it’s not because of “misandry”, but because some men are trained (by the patriarchy) to see the threat of violence as a valid reaction towards anyone they’re unhappy with.
/rant
Blackhead, I don’t catch trains, but this woman’s experience seems entirely unsurprising to me.
http://captainawkward.com/2012/09/15/conversations-on-a-train/
@ Radical Parrot
Well according to you we are really facing one hell of a conspiracy here. Not only are all men (or nearly all men) part of a general plan to put women down but ‘immature’ women too- which presumably means any woman who is not a rabid man hater.
I would presume your list of enemies encompass at least ninety percent of the worlds population.
As for the supposed Facebook example, it proves the opposite of what you claim. You see, we see men die every day in Hollywood movies and on the news. We are quite used to the idea so when a teenager sets out to shock he posts a picture of a dead woman and not a man. Dead men are normal.
I wonder if you would be prepared to ask your sisters to stop posting castration jokes?
I thought not.
The only real ‘sex war’ going on right now is between the slutwalkers (generally repulsive) and femen who are often stunning- not like feminists at all.
Both are engaged in a race to the bottom. The prize is not political power but attention. This is why femen have so many competing demands, a bit of economic nationalism, a bit of atheism a bit of racial purity. It amounts to nothing but ‘look at me’.
Both groups will have to go further and further to keep the little attention they have. In the case of femen this will probably result in violence against the innocent. In the case of slutwalk it is likely to be self mutilation.
So when are you producing your novel, Blackhead? I mean, it’s kind of you to give us a serialised preview and all, but for the full effect of such a magnificent work of fiction, I’d really like the ability to read more of it at one sitting.
@The Light-Absorbing Asshat:
Oh my unholy paganic gods, you’re thick. You know what, you don’t deserve any replies from me after this. You’ve repeatedly shown yourself to be a dishonest, obnoxious, lying little twit. You don’t want to understand, otherwise you’d have understood from my previous post 1) that patriarchal beliefs are not a conspiracy, 2) that I just described most men as decent human beings who want women to enjoy the same rights as them, 3) that men in Hollywood movies don’t die because they’re men, but because they fulfill a crucial role in respect to the current male power fantasy (the mentor, the villain, the henchman, etc). Women suffer and die because they’re women, because they’re victims. They’re frequently depicted as ”the girlfriend” or ”the wife”, and are killed off to provide a motivation for the hero. Men who elicit a similar response from the hero usually have some other role in the narrative as well.
Anyhoo, we were not talking about the general media image of women. Then again, you seem to have gotten all your ideas about women and feminism from 1990’s sitcoms, so maybe we’re on to something here.
What castration jokes? I have not heard a castration joke in my life, and if I had, I’d have told people to cut them out. Gendered violence is not funny. Well, violence in general is unfunny, but you catch my drift.
As for your latest, batshit theory post, I’m not even going to bother. Either you just want to stir shit up, or you have enormous confirmation bias (”I know for a certainty that feminists hate and want to castrate all men, so nothing you man-hating, castrating feminists say can convince me otherwise”). That is not a good place to start a discussion, buddy.
I call for a ban. Some trolls are genuinely entertaining, but The Black Fedora is just dull, repetitive, disrespectful and annoying. The fact that he’s been consistently so doesn’t help.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm
the Femen will be politically dead soon, other feminists used to despise them quietly (because of the “objectification”, their anti-intellectualism and the poverty of their discourse, yes, even feminists can realize that it’s a bad thing if feminist are too dumb), but when they started burning the flag of jihad in front of the mosques, they’ve lost their last supports and the other feminists excommunicated them openly. In France, at least, even leftists started to tell them to go back to Ukraine. Some in the far right admitted that they have guts (jihad flag burning doesn’t happen so often, especially jihad flag burning in front of a mosque) and could have accepted them – the far right tend to become more and more feminist friendly – but they still hate them because of the anti-catholicism thing.
Whoever be the one who pulls their strings will have to realize that they will have been a bad investment, apart maybe from pissing off Russia for fun and strengthening the dislike of the French for the use of English language on their soil.
If you read the context, it is pretty clear that blackhat was talking about the fierce, desert-dwelling warriors of Arrakis, who naturally dislike slutwalks because all that rhythmic slutwalking attracts the attention of the mighty sandworms.